THE adverts couldn’t have been plainer: “It’s the triumph of the motor show” they said, and back in 1965 the Triumph 1300 certainly looked like a good bet.

Conceived as a replacement for the hugely successful Herald, the 1300 was introduced at the London Motor Show in October 1965.

It was a compact four-door saloon with crisp, sharp lines, courtesy of Triumph’s preferred stylist, Michelotti, and an unusual front-wheel drive design (a first for Triumph’s parent, Leyland).

Management had given the go-ahead for a front drive layout to meet the threat from BMC’s Austin 1100 head-on.

However, the Triumph used a different layout to BMC’s popular family car where its engine sat above the gearbox and didn’t share the same oil. This made a lot of sense. The lubricant in the A-Series engine as used by the Austin was thrashed to black sludge in pretty short order by the whirling cogs of its in-sump gearbox.

However, the Triumph’s layout made the engine/gearbox appreciably taller than the A-Series powerplant – forcing Michelotti to pen a taller bonnet line than was ideal and losing some of the Herald’s racy profile.

Nevertheless, the talented Italian designer managed to disguise the bulky lines by creating a mini-me version of the popular (and more expensive) Triumph 2000 saloon.

The Northern Echo’s motoring correspondent Clive Birtwistle reported: “Confidently expected to be the only new British car at the Motor Show, the 1300 raises the family motorist into the luxury class with a profusion of refinements, including tilt adjustment of the driver’s seat and a steering column adjustable for angle and length.”

Clive had been hoodwinked, however. The 1300cc engine wasn’t really new at all, it was already working for a living in the Spitfire (albeit in rear wheel drive guise), and the suspension (double wishbones at the front, semi-trailing arms behind) had been seen before.

The Echo reported: “Testing the 1300 in Snowdonia, I was most impressed with its wonderful handling. Front drive gives the utmost confidence to the driver. A solidly built car weight 18cwt it held the road magnificently and revealed a lively performance with a top speed of 85mph.”

As the cost of development escalated, the marketing plan changed. It soon became obvious that the 1300 would sit above the Herald in the Triumph range – it was too expensive to manufacture to become a direct replacement - and the two-door model was dropped.

As well as being expensive to make, it was expensive to service. And there was still the unanswered question of what would replace the ageing Herald.

Triumph hit upon a bizarre plan. It would completely re-engineer the 1300 by making it rear wheel drive and using a cheaper live rear axle. Michelotti’s two-door bodyshell was dusted down again and the 1300 became the Triumph Toledo.

The front driver continued with an upgraded 1500cc engine and a quad headlamp facelift, while the Herald was replaced by the cheap ‘n’ cheerful Toledo which has single unit lamps and a truncated boot.

It’s a testimony to Michelotti’s original design that this five-year-old car didn’t look instantly out of date when it launched in 1970 – far from it.

The 1500 became something of a premium small saloon – a kind of BMW 320 of its day – and the Toledo retained enough of that car’s charm to make it a big-selling competitor to the 1100/1300 range.

Even more excitingly, Triumph had a further ace up its sleeve. Thanks to a partnership with Saab, the company had a larger capacity in-line four which slotted into the engine bay with minimal work. Thus equipped the car was renamed the Dolomite and sales really accelerated.

When Leyland merged with BMC in 1968 it could have called time on the Toledo/1500. Instead it did something bonkers. It gave the go-ahead for a 16-valve head and a two-litre version of the Saab/Triumph engine that would crown the Dolomite range.

The Sprint, as it was known, arrived in 1973 to rapturous reviews. With the bigger engine and the 16v head it could crack 60mph in less than nine seconds, putting the Sprint in a class of its own.

Sadly, Triumph threw away its competitive edge by rushing the development and problems with the fragile cylinder head strangled Sprint sales (by the time the TR7 sportscar launched a couple of years later BL management were so wary of the 16v they traded performance for reliability by going back to a convention 8v cylinder head atop the 2.0-litre).

Had the Sprint enjoyed reliability it could have given the British car industry a true competitor to the German saloons that were only just beginning to worm their way in the public’s awareness. As it is, the little Triumph remains another Great British what-if.